Is it about democracy, really? Taking stock of the views of Fortune’s anonymous author
The spectacular success with which the recently held election was conducted has been widely debated throughout the country. The enthusiastic support the results of the election received from various sections of the peoples of Ethiopia has also been all too palpable. The pre- and post-election developments have shown to the whole world that the peoples of Ethiopia have no use for violence as a means of expressing their support for or opposition to contending political parties. The fact that the majority of opposition parties have already conceded defeat and vowed to continue to work on the basis of the inter-party cooperative framework already in place, was another welcome development that helped instil confidence in the overall process. To the extent that there are few voices of rejection bent on violence or street action, they have little, if any, going for them as the peoples of Ethiopia are unequivocal about their commitment to the ideals of peace and democracy. There is indeed consensus even among supporters of the opposition that the results were in fact the true reflections of the will of the people.
Ironically, the largely peaceful and calm conduct of the election has also generated a lot of negative interest among too many a commentator both from within and abroad. Though very few, the chorus of criticism of detractors is getting louder with each passing day. One such commentary by an anonymous writer did appear on the English weekly Fortune, entitled, “EPRDF aims for Chinese model legitimacy not Democracy”, (06.08.2010). The article showcases a laundry list of all the accusations often flung at the government by foreign commentators. It is clear that the article was written by people who are disinclined to give the incumbent the benefit of the doubt even for a moment, for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not the election results reflected the true will of the peoples of Ethiopia. The assumptions embedded in the article are unmistakably ideological and betray an entrenched bias not only to the government but also to the peoples of Ethiopia. The article is full of assumptions all too liberally assembled to fit the writer’s preconceived notions of all that has gone wrong in Ethiopian politics. Even the very fact that the name of the author is withheld tells us a lot about the writer’s intentions. It would be all too naïve to ask if such could have been the case if the article was to appear in a western newspaper.
The basic assumption of the article is that an election in which the results fall short of unseating the incumbent - much less one in which it wins a landslide - could ever be considered even remotely legitimate no matter how free and fair its conduct might have been. It contends that the ruling party had completely discredited its “already soft democratic credentials with the farcical elections of 2010”, that is to say, the results of the election which saw the ruling coalition sweep the great majority of parliamentary seats. The author of the article thinks that the result is unjustifiable and further asserts that EPRDF won a victory of force, “fully convincing Ethiopians that the cost of opposition is pain and exclusion, even death.” But these assertions are mere innuendos woefully bereft of even the scantiest of evidence. In fact, all the observer missions in this election have made it abundantly clear that there was scarcely any substantive merit to such a claim. As if to make up for the yawning gap between such a hollow claim and the realities on the ground, the anonymous author takes refuge in threadbare argument that the people of Ethiopia must have thought better of voting “against a ruling party that will refuse to relinquish power, anyway”, a position that is also shared by a great many commentators who have difficulty coming to terms with any prospect of the EPRDF’s remaining in power, no matter how stellar the credibility of its electoral gains. (Human Rights Watch’s claim that the election results were proof positive of “the retrospective falsification” of the process springs to mind.)
The anonymous author, like many like-minded commentators, is not even remotely interested in the extent to which the electoral process was free and fair. It is the result that matters, and even so, it is the identity of the party/parties winning the election that matters most. True to form, this article is full of references as to how donors should leverage their aid “to beat EPRDF into line’; as to how the results are ‘farcical’ or ‘unjustifiable’; but there is little by way of attempting to show how unfair the process was. Even the magnanimous gesture of Prime Minister Meles to bring on board all opposition parties loyal to the constitution is nowhere mentioned in the article. The explanation is simple, of course: the only democratic and credible outcome is one in which the incumbent loses, shares powers with the opposition or is weakened to such an extent that it will be kept on its toes for the remainder of the term. Reading the Fortune piece, for example, one could not help wondering if the author believes the EPRDF should have parcelled out parliamentary seats to opposition bigwigs so there would be some semblance of competition.
Much as the author would wish to have us believe he/she is interested in democracy - free and fair elections, respect for popular will and so forth - the article is rather about some ill-disguised ideological assumptions that have nothing to do with protecting the interests of the Ethiopian people. The main thrust of the article is on what Ethiopia should do to accommodate the interests of forces which have made it their business to arm-twist it into submitting to their terms. It is about the kinds of concessions it needs to make in order to win the benediction - hence legitimacy - of forces other than the peoples of Ethiopia. As the tell-tale title of the article suggests, Ethiopia under the EPRDF’s leadership is being accused of defying the orthodoxy preached by some in the west. True, its socio-economic policies and strategies may sometimes become harder to pigeonhole into ideological compartments acceptable to these forces. But this has everything to do with the realization that, in order to succeed, politics and economics need to reflect local realities. It is not uncommon for these groups to use one political discourse or another in order to sell a given economic narrative amenable to enhancing their own interests. As the anonymous author of this particular article repeatedly claims, the EPRDF has never parted with “Marxist” ambitions nor will it adopt a ‘truly market-based’ economy such as he/she would have liked to see in the country. The results of the recent election are therefore proof that the EPRDF is indeed drifting further away from the path of free market economy—which, incidentally, is equated with its breaking with its commitment to democratic ideals.
One of the self-serving assumptions in the article concerns EPRDF’s preferred sources of legitimacy - nationalism and prosperity - as a substitute for democracy, as if nationalism and prosperity are mutually exclusive with democracy. It is quite a strange dichotomy. Even more interesting is the claim that EPRDF’s economic prosperity - which the author also tells us is way too exaggerated without bothering to show how - is in fact meant to buy legitimacy from the peoples of Ethiopia. Whipping up nationalism, the author tells us, is a whole lot easier in Ethiopia because of “the rampant xenophobia” that permeates Ethiopian society. To even try to counter such a bizarre- libellous no less - characterization is tantamount to dignifying it by response. But the paternalistic tone is unmistakable. The article is replete with many such condescending remarks.
The author clearly resents what he believes to be the kid-glove treatment the EPRDF has always and will continue to receive from the west. He/she even wonders - angrily - why Western governments “are willing to be reviled publicly by the Revolutionary Democrats and still shore them up.” The author does not stop there. As if to dare donors into action, s/he goes on to reassure them that, despite their [Ethiopians] unrealistic view of themselves as being “the center of the Earth”, and “major players in the war on terror”, they are in fact marginal players. In a sheer display of visceral contempt, the author tells us that “the West’s distinct interest is in not having another big famine on the world’s TV screens.” S/he then goes on to express frustration that “strong action could not be expected against Ethiopia’s phoney elections” because “the West is not heavily concerned with human rights and democracy in Africa.” Ironically, the author appears to resent what he calls “Ethiopia’s marginal importance” as the reason why the ‘EPRDFites’ are getting away with whatever wrongdoing he imputes to them. In this case EPRDF’s fault lies in its fiercely defence of its economic policy autonomy and unwillingness to submit to the dictates of others.
Ethiopia, we are told, is drifting further away from democracy because the west is not willing to beat EPRDF into line, by failing to leverage the aid it provides to the country. The author exhorts Western donors to get serious with the EPRDF because failure to do so, he argues, will spoil it into disregarding, as it were, their interests. That there are too many Chinese businesses in the country and throughout Africa apparently is fuelling the anonymous author’s fear. Through all this, what is conspicuously missing in the article is any mention of how all this would contribute to making the democratic process in Ethiopia any more vibrant than it has thus far been. Nor is any clue given to Ethiopia as to what measures it needs to take to ensure that the democratic process stays on track. This raises the question whether the whole issue of democracy is just a smokescreen to advance another agenda far removed from the interests of the peoples of Ethiopia. What Ethiopia needs, the author intimates, is “a strong and unmitigated statement of commitment to the free market and openness to change.” He explains what he means by free market lest we should be mistaken: it is a system in which “the banking and telecommunication sectors, weak compared even to the rest of Africa” are fully liberalized. Where elections come in here is anybody’s guess.
In case we miss it, the author also reminds us, in unmistakably paternalistic fashion, that trying to import the Chinese economic system is unwise, not least because Chinese “deep anti-African racism could make European colonialism look like a school picnic.” What is striking here is how little or no regard is made to the national interest of Ethiopia and how flexible becomes the notion of what constitutes legitimately democratic or not. When Ethiopia does business with China it is rendered suspect; when it hands over strategic economic sectors to foreigners at the expense of its national interest, it qualifies it to become a reliable partner. Ethiopia’s choice does not have any place at all.
The author’s trenchant bias against the government of Ethiopia is only understandable. It is not altogether difficult to understand that he has bones to pick with the political order in Ethiopia either. First and foremost, Ethiopia’s democracy is that of its people and that is the only yardstick by which its success is to be measured. As for the use of aid to influence politics, we can only say that this is a tried method that has utterly failed several times over. Much as Ethiopia treasures its friendship with its partners East or West, North or South; it does not allow others to choose friends for it. The Ethiopian people have said as much, and prudence would demand that others heed that.